Prosecutors Order Probe Into Threats Against Jailed Milic
Belgrade's higher prosecution says unknown persons are threatening the former city police chief while he is held in the County Prison, and has ordered an urgent case opened.
- Belgrade's higher prosecution said on June 20 that unknown persons are threatening Veselin Milic in the County Prison.
- The Second basic prosecution office was ordered to open a case without delay and identify those issuing the threats.
- The legal qualification is suspected endangerment of safety, a crime prosecuted on the state's own initiative.
- Milic's detention was extended to July 12, and the prison service says it safeguards all detainees.
The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade said on June 20 that unknown persons are sending threats to Veselin Milic, the former chief of the Belgrade police, while he is held in the County Prison. Prosecutors said there are grounds to suspect the crime of endangerment of safety.
In response, the Second Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade was ordered to open a case without delay and take steps to establish the identity of those behind the threats. The matter is being pursued on the state’s own initiative rather than on a private complaint, meaning prosecutors themselves are driving the inquiry.
Milic is one of the suspects in what is known as the Senjak case. He is charged with failing to report a crime and its perpetrator. His guilt has not been established by a final court ruling, and at this stage he retains the presumption of innocence.
What exactly are prosecutors ordering?
Ordering a case to be opened means the competent prosecution will start a separate file in which evidence about the threats is gathered. The aim is to determine who is behind the messages and whether their content is enough to support an indictment. Endangerment of safety is a crime that covers a threat to attack the life or body of a person or someone close to them.
In such cases, the preliminary inquiry involves establishing where the threats came from, how they were delivered and the circumstances in which they reached the detainee. Because the conduct is said to be taking place inside the prison system, part of the inquiry is also directed at how the messages could have reached a person in detention at all.
Milic’s detention was extended by a ruling of the Higher Court in Belgrade on June 12, lasting until July 12, 2026. That means he is expected to remain in the County Prison throughout the period in which the threats are being examined, unless circumstances change.
Who answers for safety in detention?
The Administration for the Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions responded to the prosecution’s statement. The body said it safeguards the security of absolutely all persons held in detention, regardless of who they are or why they were deprived of liberty.
The reaction of the two institutions shows the case is being viewed along two tracks. The prosecution deals with the criminal aspect, namely whether an offense was committed and by whom. The prison service answers for the conditions of confinement and the physical safety of detainees inside the facility.
For the legal system, this is a question larger than one name. The state is obliged to guarantee the safety of every person it deprives of liberty, since a detainee is not convicted and is treated as innocent until a final verdict. A threat directed at someone in state custody raises the question of how far the system can meet that duty in practice.
Will the inquiry manage to establish who is threatening a person held under the state’s watch?
